Adventist Media Response and Conversation

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Jimmy Swaggart’s Distorted Bible Commentary

I happened upon Jimmy Swaggart’s A Study in the Word daily telecast a while back and saw a presentation which though it is traditional in Christianity also demonstrates that the tradition has no basis in Biblical fact.

The following is taken from Jimmy Swaggart’s Expositor’s StudyBible which is a King James Version to which he has added his own notes in red:

Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass (the phase used here refers to a long indefinite period), That Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. (This was Probably the first offering that he brought, even though the Lord had explained to the First Family the necessity of the Sacrificial System, that is if they were to have any type of communion with God and Forgiveness of sins. There is evidence that Adam, at least for a while, offered up sacrifices. Cain knew the type of Sacrifice that the Lord would accept, but he rebelled against that admonition, demanding that God accept the labor of his hands, which, in fact, God could not accept. So we have, in the person of Cain and Abel, the first examples of a religious man of the world and a genuine man of faith.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof (this is what God demanded; it was a blood sacrifice of an innocent victim, a lamb, which proclaimed the fact that Abel recognized his need of a Redeemer, and that One was coming Who would redeem lost humanity; the Offering of Abel was a type of Christ and the price that He would pay on the cross of Calvary in order for man to be redeemed).

He then, in his presentation on his TV show attempted to show how important his Bible is. He quotes a conversation between some author, a scholar:

“who has written any number of books, told Francis the other day. He said sister Swaggart, after he had seen this Bible, he said, if every believer had a copy of the Expositor’s StudyBible most false doctrine wouldn’t get off the ground. Most false doctrine wouldn’t get off the ground and he is 100% right.”[At around 15 minutes into his March 23, 2007 daily telecast]

For those who have discovered the way that fundamentalists redefine the stories in Genesis to suit their own purposes it is pretty clear that Swaggart’s notes are nothing but his bias and/or assumptions. Consider what he says: even though the Lord had explained to the First Family the necessity of the Sacrificial System, that is if they were to have any type of communion with God and Forgiveness of sins. There is nothing in the Genesis account about anyone explaining a sacrificial system to Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel. To back up his false statement or at best his assumption stated as fact he says: There is evidence that Adam, at least for a while, offered up sacrifices. Really? Where is there any such evidence? It would seem to be something that an expositor would want to include in the notes of his commentary. The reason Swaggart does not include his evidence is because he has none. He has merely presented a gratuitous assertion and hoped his appeal to non existent evidence will satisfy those who were initially foolish enough to think that his comments were worth purchasing the Expositor’s StudyBible. That name is no doubt chosen because of its similarity to the highly regarded Expositor’s Bible Commentary but there is really nothing that should be highly regarded in the notes of Swaggart’s Bible.

Most Christians have grown up with the idea that God rejected Cain’s offering because it was not a blood sacrifice. No where in the story is such an idea presented but it is assumed because of the traditions that have built up in the Christian religion. What is more likely is that God rejected Cain’s sacrifice because of Cain’s attitude. In fact when God speaks to Cain in the story He does not say it is about the sacrifice but He indicates it is Cain’s attitude that is the problem. In fact the story is used to indicate the foreknowledge of God.

(Gen 4:6-8 NIV) Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

Today we are at a stage where Christianity has to redefine itself to reach post modern man and one of the things we have to do is respect the stories for what they say rather then what we may want to read into them. Many Christians are not even aware of just how much ill conceived tradition has been incorporated into their religion. There seems to be no denomination that has not incorporated some poorly reasoned or erroneous ideas into their religion but we don’t have to keep them and we certainly should not build them into Bibles.


Anonymous said...

Hi, I also have a Jimmy Swaggart's Expositor's Study Bible and I am very well pleased with it. As to your comment that there is no biblical evidence of a sacrifical system mentioned to Adam and Eve, what about the Lord's displeasure with the "covering" of fig leaves, where He had to kill an animal for a covering that was acceptable to him. There something had to shed its blood in order for God to be pleased with a covering for Adam and Eve, which was a type of Christ, in that humankind has forever tried to cover up their sin with things that were unacceptable, but only the blood of Christ will satisfy the requirements that God made for the redemption of mankind. I respect your opinion, as I hope you do mine, but anyway we both have given each other food for thought. Keep in touch.

Ron Corson said...

I responded to this comment at:
They read penal atonement even when it is not there

Anonymous said...

the reason why God did not accept his sacrifice is because when adam and eve went against God's will then he cursed the very ground because of their disobedence it was not because of cain's attitude it was because the ground was cursed and when they were to make a sacrifice to God they had to get an animal that showed no blemish it had to be spotless from the inside out and the blood from this perfect sacrfice and it was symbolic to Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins(he was a spotless sacrifice). And when cain sent it up it was appealing to the eye of man not to God therefore that is why God did not accept his scarfice. Also the sacrifice only covered the sin of man and it did not take it away. That is when Jesus came and redemed the world so that they could be saved and he cleaned the slat of sin. even though the animal could not take away sin it covered it and the sacrifce was pleasing to God in his eye and not man. That is why this sacrifice was not accepted. I pray that you begin to reasearch the facts before you judge what God gave to Minister Jimmy Swaggart to help people understand .

Ron Corson said...

You realize the story says nothing about an animal without blemish you are inserting what would have to be later rituals into the story. That is Swaggart's problem and frankly it is the problem of many people because they can't handle the story as it is written so they have to add to it.

Anonymous said...

I was the first anonymous that left a comment. You said in your arguement that God didn't accept Cain's offering because it was offered with the wrong attitude; you offered Genesis 4:6-8 as the proof for that assumption. It was true that Cain developed a bad attitude but the bad attitude came after God rejected his sacrifice in verse 5. "But unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell." The "And" is a conjunction, which means he was angry as a result of what happened before the "And."

Ron Corson said...

Well you don't really help yourself because the only way you can do that is to show that God asked Cain or Abel to give a specific offering. All you have done is agree with me that Cain attitude was not right, you just assume that his attitude became not right because God rejected his offering. Basically making it God's fault since you can find nothing to suggest God asked for a specific offering. Better to go with what the story says then to go with a bunch of assumptions read into a story.

Anonymous said...

No, I'm not agreeing with you. I'm reading the story as you are. I quoted "But unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell." Where does it say that God was displeased with Cain's attitude? It says that he did not have respect to his offering. Why didn't the writer of Genesis say, "But unto Cain and to his ATTITUDE He had not respect." If your assumption is correct and the writer of Genesis had said that his problem was the attitude THEN he would not have had to mention that Cain got very angry. See if we are totally disagreeing with any assumption then you have to admit that all you are doing is assuming that it was the attitude of the offering rather than the sacrifice. Because that is the only thing the scripture points out is that God wasn't pleased with the sacrifice.

Ron Corson said...

Come on be reasonable. If it was not his attitude then what was it. Even if you believe that it was that Cain offered the wrong offering why do you think he would offer the wrong offering? It would have to be his attitude.

All you do by ignoring the attitude is create an assumption that God told him what to offer, which clearly the story does not say.

This is why critical thinking is so important and why commentaries like Jimmy Swaggart's replace critical thinking with traditions. Assumptions which are thought to be true because the people don't bother to question the assumptions.

You wrote:
If your assumption is correct and the writer of Genesis had said that his problem was the attitude THEN he would not have had to mention that Cain got very angry.

What nonsense! The writer uses the anger to explain what happened. If it was merely because he did not offer the right offering why not explain that the right offering was not given and that would explain why God did not accept Cain's offering. The telling about Cain's anger explains both the rejected offering and supports God's judgment by then showing Cain's attitude and then the story verifies that God was right by Cain's action of killing his brother.

This is so obvious if it were not for people reading their traditions into a very simple story.

Anonymous said...

It's obvious that this could go on forever,which I hope it won't. I know that I will never convince you as you will never convince me. These are our beliefs, our fundamentals. However, just as you sit and read every word I say and believe it is just "nonsense," that too is how I sit and read your comments. It is hard for anyone who believes that they are 100% right (as you and I both do) to even fathom how anyone can believe otherwise. I would be more comfortable with your argument if in fact the verse that we have been quoting back and forth to each other (Gen. 4:5) said, "But Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.And unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. But Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell." According to your argument the Effect comes before the Cause. I do have a question: are you saying that the Levitical Priesthood & Mosaic Laws of the Old Testament were not intended by God as well as the New Testament story of the Crucifixion of Jesus? Are you saying that any mention of blood sacrifice was born out of a "tradition" and has therefore hijacked an entire religion? Now you say that because the Scripture never mentions in Chapter 4 what type of sacrifice was to be offered, it's not true that Cain's offering was rejected because it wasn't a lamb and anyone who believes such is just assuming just like they assume that Adam & Eve's coat of skins was a result of this same assumption. Ok, Chapter 4 never mentions what type of sacrifice had to be offered. But if we are doing away with all assumptions - tell me where from Genesis 1 to Genesis 4 the Doctrine of Attitudes is mentioned? Now don't just pass off that question as ridiculous and nonsense, because I believe it is wrong to have a bad attitude. BUT if we're not into assuming, as you clearly state that you deal with facts, where does it mention that God told them what kind of attitude to have??

Ron Corson said...

I can't believe you ask such a question. The attitude is mentioned in the verse we were discussing.

(Gen 4:2 NIV) Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.

(Gen 4:3 NIV) In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD.

(Gen 4:4 NIV) But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

(Gen 4:5 NIV) but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

(Gen 4:6 NIV) Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?

(Gen 4:7 NIV) If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

So from the story, God says to Cain nothing about the offering He refers to Cain's attitude, Why are you angry. From there He says if you do well then you will be accepted if you don't do well sin is at the door. Now of course you may think sin is some outside object but sin is an attitude. So I acknowledge that I won't convince you because you don't want to be convinced.

By the way why do you assume Abel offered a lamb? Oh that is right tradition.

The word the KJV uses for keeper of sheep is:

6629 tso'n (tsone);

or tse'own (Psalm 144:13) (tseh-one'); from an unused root meaning to migrate; a collective name for a flock (of sheep or goats); also figuratively (of men):

KJV-- (small) cattle, flock (+-s), lamb (+-s), sheep ([-cote, -fold, -shearer, -herds]).

Swaggart though he does not reference it is simply carrying on the idea found in the Scofield Bible.

From the Expositors Bible Commentary Footnotes:

3 The Scofield Bible represents the popular view that Cain's offering was faulted because it was not a blood sacrifice: "Cain's unbloody offering was a refusal of the divine way," or "His [Abel's] sacrifice, in which atoning blood was shed (Heb. 9:22), was therefore at once his confession of sin and the expression of his faith in the interposition of a substitute (Heb. 11:4)" (pp. 10-11). However, the word minechah (minhah "offering") refers to any type of offering, whether grain or animal (KB, s.v.). By itself minhah would not imply that the offering should be a slaughtered animal, as would zebhach (zebah). KB (p. 251) describes the latter term as "an offering of sheep, goat, cattle, the aim of which is communion between the giver of the offering and the deity to whom the offering is given." Since Cain was a farmer, his minhah was appropriately from the "fruits of the soil"; and since Abel was a shepherd, his minhah was appropriately from "the firstborn of his flock." The fact that the writer of Hebrews (11:4) refers to Cain's and Abel's offerings each as a thusia (thysia) does not imply that he saw them as essentially to be blood sacrifices since the LXX renders minhah in Gen 4:3-4 with thusia. The LXX distinguishes between the minhah (= thysia) of Cain and the minhah ( = döron [doron "gift"]) of Abel, but thysia does not represent a "blood sacrifice."

Anonymous said...

You still aren't answering the question "Where is the proof that the attitude was the problem initially." Everyone knows that anger can and will destroy; anger is something that can eat away at a person until that person is totally consumed. Your reference from the NIV makes my point all the more. You put the Effect BEFORE the Cause. (Gen 4:5 NIV) "but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. "So" (as a result of and any other descriptive of what the word "so" meansCain was very angry, and his face was downcast." Cain was angry AFTER his sacrifice wasn't accepted. That's why the word "So" was used in the sentence AFTER the rejection of his sacrifice.

Yes Cain was angry, and God asks Cain a soul searching question, "(Gen 4:6 NIV) Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?

(Gen 4:7 NIV) If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

It's as if God is saying to Cain, there's no need of you to be angry, if you do what is right then your sacrifice will be accepted. I'm a school teacher; a lot of times I'll have students who will disobey rules and who get punished for what they do. Saying that they get angry at times is an understatement; many of them get furious? I'll ask them, why are you mad? They'll say, because I got dention. Then I say to them, "well if you obey the rules you won't get detention."

I'll ask the same question again, because you beat around the bush. Give me the verse from Genesis 1 to Genesis 4 that says what attitude the person should have when they make a sacrifice? You want the verse where God demanded a blood sacrifice; I want the verse where God specified an attitude.

I know sin can be an attitude, but doesn't sin always go back to our refusal to obey God. I say God wanted a blood sacrifice, you say it's not mentioned. You say the sin was the attitude, I say it's not mentioned. The word anger was never mentioned until the sacrifice was rejected, neither did the mention of the blood sacrifice until later in the Old Testament.

Ron Corson said...

You wrote:

"I know sin can be an attitude, but doesn't sin always go back to our refusal to obey God. I say God wanted a blood sacrifice, you say it's not mentioned. You say the sin was the attitude, I say it's not mentioned. The word anger was never mentioned until the sacrifice was rejected, neither did the mention of the blood sacrifice until later in the Old Testament."

If God wanted a blood sacrifice then He should have asked for it to be blood. He did not so Cain could not have disobeyed God by offering a non blood offering. So if we don't go inserting blood sacrifice into the story all that is left is the attitude. Sin always begins as an attitude.

If you think I am beating around the bush then this conversation is over because I don't know how to make it any more clear for you. Because it seems you simply don't want to think outside of your tradition.

Anonymous said...

My tradition? That tradition is believed by approximately 13.2 Jews and approximately 2.1 billion Christians. I'm flattered that is "my" tradition. I could easily say that the entire Book of Leviticus explains in detail the lamb sacrifice system, but you would say, "that came out of the assumption." So, according to you, that is not a valid thought because in Genesis 4 there is no mention of what the sacrifice God ordered Cain and Abel to give. OK, but you still will not address the issue of why Cain didn't become angry until after the sacrifice was rejected. I mean, what are your thoughts on that?? This conversation is not over because you can't make it anymore clear to me, because i know what your arguement is; as a matter of fact I thought you would be thrilled considering you made this post almost 2 years ago and other than me there was one other post. It is over because you will not address my points.

Ron Corson said...

If you have not noticed the stories in Genesis are very sparse. We don't know anything about Cain or Abel until this story. So to ask why Cain did not show his anger before this story is silly.

You speak as if what you believe is believed by all Jews and Christians. Clearly you are wrong in that belief I already posted the view from the Expositor's Bible commentary which is certainly written by more than a few Christians. Here is the Jewish view from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

—1. Biblical Data:

First-born of Adam and Eve, named "Cain" ("Ḳayin") because "gotten" (root, "ḳanah") "with the help of Yhwh." He became a tiller of the ground, and made an offering of its fruits which Yhwh did not accept, though He had accepted that of Abel. Cain was angered, whereupon Yhwh assured him that divine acceptance depended upon conduct. Cain slew Abel, and was cursed by Yhwh so that the soil should yield no return to his labor, and he should be driven out to wander over the earth. At Cain's appeal Yhwh "made to him a sign, lest any one finding him should smite him." Cain went forth to the land of Nod Wandering), east of Eden; his wife bore him a son Enoch, after whom he named a city which he had built. From him were descended Lamech, who is recorded as having married two wives; Jabal, who instituted nomad life; Jubal, who invented music; and Tubal-Cain, the inventor of metal weapons—i.e., the authors of material and social progress.K. W. H. B.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

Cain, the murderer of his brother Abel, presented to the views of the Rabbis two different types. One was that of a sinner who yielded to his passions who was greedy, "offering to God only worthless portions; the remnants of his meal or flaxseed"; whom either God's favorable acceptance of Abel's sacrifice or Abel's handsomer wife and twin sister filled with jealousy; who, because he claimed the pasture-land or the wife of Abel as his birthright, quarreled with his brother. He was nevertheless sincere in his repentance when he said, "Too great is my sin [A. V., "punishment"] to bear" (Gen. iv. 13). and so the mark the Lord set upon him was a token of forgiveness. Like a man who had slain another without premeditation, he was sent into exile to atone for his sin (Sanh. 37b); and his crime was finally atoned for when he met death through the falling upon him of his house (Book of Jubilees, iv. 31), or at the hands of his great-grandson Lamech, who took him for a wild beast in the distance and shot him (Tan., Bereshit, ed. Vienna, p. 6b, and Yalḳ. i. 38).

Cain was also viewed as a type of utter perverseness, an offspring of Satan (Pirḳe R. El. xxi.), "a son of wrath" (Apoc. Mosis, 3), a lawless rebel who said, "There is neither a divine judgment nor a judge" (Midr. Leḳaḥ Ṭob and Targ. Yer. to Gen. iv. 8), whose words of repentance were insincere (Sanh. 101b; Tan.), whose fleeing from God was a denial of His omnipresence (Gen. R. xxii.), and whose punishment was of an extraordinary character: for every hundred years of the seven hundred years he was to live was to inflict another punishment upon him; and all his generations must be exterminated (Test. Patr., Benjamin, 7, according to Gen. iv. 24; Enoch, xxii, 7). For him and his race shall ever be "the desire of the spirit of sin" (Gen. R. xx., after Gen. iv. 7). He is the first of those who have no share in the world to come (Ab. R. N. xli., ed. Schechter, p. 133).

I suspect the problem is that I can't make you think and that is the first step in the whole process.

Anonymous said...

I never said that Cain never was angry before this story; I said based on the story he didn't get angry until God didn't accept his offering. What is your views on the death of Jesus - did he die and set people free from sin or did he save us because he had a good attitude? Why do you think Cain & Abel were offering sacrifices to begin with for sin, fun, and/or a pass time? And if you don't believe that Jesus had to shed blood his blood as a sacrifice for mankind's sin - PLEASE don't try to convince me that I'm one of a few Christians that believe that. That is what all of Christianity is based on!

Anonymous said...

And please tell me, since you seem to be familar with the Jewish Encyclopedia what it says about the Levitical Sacrifices.

Ron Corson said...

That is the problem people assume so much about the Genesis story then connect it to a particular atonement theory and when they are shown that the story does not say what they say it says they want to move on to something else.

That is why it is important to not insert meaning into a story that does not have the meaning in the story. That is the difference between Exegesis and Eisgesis. Swaggart and Anonymous choose Eisegesis, reading their ideas into the verses.

If Swaggart were to say this is what I think, or this is what could have happened. it would be a far different story. But these people don't do that because it has to be their way or no way even if the facts don't line up with their way.

Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to move on. As you know I believe that the coat of skins provided for Adam & Eve and the lamb sacrifice offered by Abel were all "Types of Christ." I asked you what is your belief on the death of Jesus? For one thing I believe that the Bible has one theme throughout and that is Redemption. When Adam & Eve sinned, God told Satan that one day the "seed of the woman" would one day "crush his head." Do you believe that was referring to Jesus or again do you believe this is an assumption?

Anonymous said...

i don't have his bible but i know from the bible that they did animal sacrifices back then.. because of God killed one.. to make there garments. thus starting the animal sacrifices because God covered them with animal so in turn they covered there sins they did and do back then till Jesus came for all.

Anonymous said...

I'm with you Anonymous!!

Ron Corson said...

First anon. said:
"As you know I believe that the coat of skins provided for Adam & Eve and the lamb sacrifice offered by Abel were all "Types of Christ. I asked you what is your belief on the death of Jesus?"

I have written a lot on the subject of Christ and the atonement, you may want to read:

Is there anything in the Genesis story or latter in the Bible to assert that the providing clothing was a type of Christ. No there is not. You are inserting tradition. In fact the story has nothing at all to do with Satan. It is a term not even used of an evil being at that time of Israel. The course is upon the snake. The animal that crawls on the ground. The seed of the woman that crushes the serpents head is just that a common method of killing snakes. Again that verse is never used anywhere in the Bible as a reference to the Messiah.

When you read these kinds of comments of the anon. commenter you see just how powerful their tradition is, that they don't even question their traditions. See also my recent blog article:

Provision Property Management said...

I can't take a lot more of this arguing over why God did not accept cains sacrafice. If you read the bible I think its pretty obvious. That being said MR. CARSON CAN YOU GIVE ME ANOTHER MEANS OF BEING ACCEPTED BY GOD OTHER THAN THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. IF You can, and back it up with scripture I would love to see. I'm guessing you feel salvation is in keeping the sabbath.

Ron Corson said...

The question:

We are accepted because God loves us not because God has been bought off by the blood of Jesus. As the Bible says "it is by grace that you are saved through faith" The problem with the entire Penal theory of the atonement is that it sets God up as wrathful and Jesus as the one who loves and forgives. But God is one so that idea cannot work. The incarnation...the life death and resurrection are the ways God reveals this love, it is not His way of being satisfied that someone had to pay the penalty for sin.

"I'm guessing you feel salvation is in keeping the sabbath."

Very good. With that as your perspective which is quite strange and totally based upon nothing I have ever said, I see that there is little reason to explain to you by the Bible why your assumptions are wrong. But clearly you are wrong and possibly why you can't take it any longer. You don't want to think, you don't want to expose yourself to anything other than what you already believe. And that is sad.

Provision Property Management said...

Mr Carson

Provision Property Management said...

You say you believe that we are saved by grace through faith. Yet you feel we must keep a sabbath. The reason I knew you believe this is because you are a Adventist. I know many with your beliefs and have had discussions with them on many occasions. You cant add works to grace of you have just canceled grace. But let's just start with what we do agree, we are saved by faith. Ok, faith in what? Let's look at the word of God. Romans 3:24-25. Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in christ Jesus whom God has set forth to be propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God". I'm not sure how you say the blood does not matter. You attack the very foundations of the Gospel.

Provision Property Management said...

Mr Carson. Now let's address your insistence that we keep the sabbath on saturday in order to be saved. I will simply quote the apostle Paul. Galations 2:16 " knowing that no man is justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Ron Corson said...

"Mr Carson. Now let's address your insistence that we keep the sabbath on saturday in order to be saved."

Where have I ever made such a comment let alone made it an insistence that someone keeps the sabbath on Saturday in order to be saved?

I have never said any such thing. You simply are content to lie because you think you are so righteous in your views...your views must be truth so that you can feel justified in using false accusations.

You sir or madam are one of the biggest problems in Christianity. What you know about Adventists is probably little, what you know about me is clearly even less.

Provision Property Management said...

Mr. Carson
I am still waiting for you to defend your position with scripture. You have failed to do that. Your positions cannot be defended with scripture because they are unscriptural. Instead you make personal attacks claiming I am not open to what you have to say. I'm open to what the word of God says, you are correct im not open to your personal ideas.

Ron Corson said...

Oh I see, you lie about me and I ask you to back up with some evidence that I said what you falsely accuse me of and it is an attack on you.

And you wonder why I don't bother dialog in depth with you!

Provision Property Management said...

My name is Michael smith, I certainly have not tried to falsely acuse you. If you do not feel that we must keep the sabbath in order to be save then I sincerely apologize. However you do seem to continually point to the fact that you do not feel we are saved by the blood of Jesus shed upon the cross. Of course this includes the burial and resurrection. I think we could agree that without the resurrection all of Christ work would have been for nought. However when he said it is finished it was finished and no power of he'll could prevent the resurrection at that point. I hope you have not taken my dialogue with you as malicious. That certainly is not my I intent. I was simply addressing what you said. You stated that we are not saved by the blood, but by grace through faith. I pointed out using the scripture where we must place out faith. I would enjoy further dialogue if you wish to continue. I will do my best not to misrepresent what you say. I appologize for the previous misunderstanding. I probably know more than you think I do about the Adventist church. I have several friends who adhere to their teachings. While I disagree with many of their doctrines I am very civil with them. If you could address what we were discussing earlier. The bible is clear we are saved by the shed blood of Christ and our faith in the work He did at Calvary. Do you agree with this mr. Carson?

Provision Property Management said...

I have reread your previous response to me, I guess I was not quite clear on what you were saying. Once again the last thing I want to do is try to twist something and misrepresent you. So I apologize once again for the misunderstanding. I am assuming now that you do not feel sabboth keeping is essential for salvation. I will take you at your word.

Provision Property Management said...

Now that being cleared up I am stil open to scriptural proof that we are not saves by the blood of Jesus Christ and our faith in that finished work. Michael

Ron Corson said...

Very well if you want to learn more about my view you need to learn some history as history is different then the tradition which many people read into the Bible.

So please read my article and explore some of the related links in the article found at:

Michael said...

Fair enough. May the lord bless you.

Anonymous said...

After reading all the comments above I have come to this conclusion, pray for understanding from God before you read your Bible and remember Revelation 22:18-19...for I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book 19) and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book......God is not the author of confusion.....God did not accept Cain's offering because He did not accept it!!! Not because of an attitude (although He knows our heart and intentions) or because it was not blood. We don't know the ways of God all we can do is ask for Him to give us understanding. And remember God might not aways give everyone the same interpretation because we are on different levels. To the teacher, you probably will explain a problem/question to a slow student much differently than that same question to a straight A student. As with us and God. Which is why we should not lean unto our own understanding. Pray for God to give you understanding each time before u read.

Ron Corson said...

No it is not enough to say that God did not accept it because God did not accept it. That would not have worked for Cain or anyone else. That is why God explained to Cain the problem of sin crouching at his door. If you think that sin is not an attitude then I don't think you understand what sin is.

People who are made after God's image want a reasoning God not an arbitrary God, if you make God arbitrary you destroy any ability to love that God, because then the only reason is because the God will punish you if you don't obey his arbitrary rules. I think your solution is probably the worse possible choice, it makes the idea of it had to be blood seem even better, even though that is pretty arbitrary also at least there was some cultural reason behind it even if it was just to fill the blood lust of the god.

Jason said...

Hebrews 11:4 sais Ables sacrifice was better, also Genesis 4:4 says God accepted Ables sacrifice not his attitude. Both prove it was the sacrifice that was Cain's problem. After his sacrifice was rejected was when his attitude wad bad. It is by the sacrifice of Jesus that paid the debt for our sins not our attitude.

Oluwakayode Stephen-Adeyemo said...

mr ron corson,

i chose to believe that you know that what you're engaging in - winching-hunting an expositor all in the name of disputing some claims is quite not different from what you claim he is doing.
for your information, i boast of a working relationship with the Lord and the Holy Spirit is ever there to put me through all things (not by works or merits but by His grace). i strongly advise you to go on recess on what Apostle Paul calls endless genealogies and arguments that do not edify the hearers. i am not a follower of jimmy swaggart's teaching in whatever format of representation but i believe the energy ad resources spent on finding falsehood on someone else's biblical claims could have been spent doing something more fundamental and rolling kingdom initiatives which i believe is more original except if you are bent on gainning cheap publicity by criticizing others. little do you know how much you are helping those you criticize to be fast, best-sellers! this, i believe, is not commiserate with the cheap publicity you get. thanks!

Anonymous said...

Actually 7Th DAY Adventist is a false doctrine all together. Sorry I will not see the reply .

Ron Corson said...

Really All together. So you agree with my article then, because Swaggart's view here is much the same as that taught in the SDA church. And if all of SDA is false doctrine then so is this teaching.

I can see why you don't want to see the response. If Swaggart is defended by people like you he does not have a chance!

Ron Corson said...

To Stephen-Adeyemo:

Teaching people how to think is never a waste of time. Your critcism of me could apply to your own letter to me. So really I what is the difference. Other then yours really was a waste of time being merely a hypocritical statement.